Field-replaceable unit revision compatibility

ABSTRACT

In a computer system including a first field-programmable unit including first field-programmable unit (FPU) code, computer-implemented techniques are disclosed for determining whether the first FPU code is compatible with the computer system and, if the first FPU code is determined not to be compatible with the computer system, notifying a user of the computer system of the incompatibility.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is related to a commonly-owned and concurrently-filedU.S. Patent Application entitled “Field-Replaceable Unit RevisionCompatibility,” Attorney Docket No. 200207881-1, which is herebyincorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to computer systems that includefield-replaceable units (FRUs).

2. Related Art

Every computer includes both hardware and software. The hardware of acomputer includes electromechanical components such as microprocessors,buses, input/output (I/O) controllers, memory, and mass storage devices(such as hard disk drives). It can be difficult to maintain and repairsuch components, particularly as they become more and more complex andminiaturized. Increasingly, it is not feasible to attempt to perform anelectrical or mechanical repair on a component such as a bus or I/Ocontroller. Rather, often the best that a technician faced with amalfunctioning computer can do is to identify the component that is thesource of the problem and to physically replace the identified componentwith a new component. Such a repair process can be tedious,time-consuming, and costly because it requires a human technician todiagnose the cause of the malfunction, open the computer housing,physically remove (and possibly dispose of) the malfunctioningcomponent, and physically install the new component. Although theprocess of diagnosing computer malfunctions is becoming increasinglyautomated, the component replacement process must still be performedmanually.

In early computer systems it was often difficult or impossible toreplace certain hardware components—such as the central processing unit(CPU), memory, and I/O controllers —after the computer had beenmanufactured. Such components might, for example, be hardwired together,in which case attempting to remove any of such components mightirreversible damage the computer. In some cases, it might be possible toremove such components by breaking and re-establishing physicalconnections by soldering or using some other tedious and time-consumingprocess requiring a skilled technician to perform.

Computer hardware designers are increasingly designing computer systemsso that components (such as the CPU, memory, and I/O controllers) can bereplaced easily in the field (i.e., at user locations). A component thatcan be easily removed from a computer and replaced with a new componentin the field is referred to as a “field-replaceable unit” (FRU). Moderncomputers increasingly include modular hardware interfaces which allowFRUs to be removed easily by a relatively unskilled technician. Removingan FRU may, for example, only require removing a few screws and pullingthe FRU out of the computer. The same technician may then install areplacement FRU with the same ease. Although the use of FRUs decreasesthe difficulty, cost, and time required to replace a hardware component,field-replacement of FRUs still requires a human technician to removeand replace the defective FRU.

Software, in contrast, is embodied in the form of electromagneticsignals stored in a mass storage device (e.g., a hard disk drive) orother form of electronic memory. It has therefore traditionally beenpossible to replace or update faulty or outdated software merely byerasing the old software and replacing it with new software provided ona tangible storage medium, such as a floppy diskette or CD-ROM. Updatingor replacing software, therefore, traditionally has been significantlyeasier and less costly to perform than hardware replacement. Thewidespread use of computer networks and the Internet has furthersimplified the process of updating software by making it possible todownload software over a network and install it—in some cases withoutany human intervention—without the need to distribute the software on aphysical medium such as a floppy diskette.

There is now a trend in computer hardware design to implement varioushardware components in ways that make it possible for hardware to beupdated and effectively replaced in a manner that is similar to themanner in which it traditionally has been possible to update and replacesoftware. The term “field-programmable unit” (FPU) refers to a hardwarecomponent whose functionality may be modified by electronicallyprogramming it. Examples of FPUs include system firmware (e.g., BIOS),embedded enclosure process firmware, and Field-Programmable Gate Arrays(FPGAs). Each of these kinds of FPUs is capable of storing electricalsignals representing code that dictates, in whole or in part, thefunctions performed by the FPU. The functionality of an FPU, therefore,may be modified merely by modifying the code (in the form of electricalsignals) stored in the FPU.

It may be necessary or desirable to re-program an FPU in any of avariety of circumstances. For example, the code stored in an FPU maybecome out-of-date, in which case it may be desirable to update the codein the FPU to enable it to perform new functions. As another example,the code stored in a newly-installed FPU may be incompatible with otherhardware in the system, in which case it may be necessary to update theFPU's code with code that is compatible with the other hardware in thesystem. The code in an FPU may also become corrupted, in which case itmay be necessary to re-load fresh code into the FPU to restore it to afunctional state.

In all of these cases, the primary advantage of the FPU overconventional forms of hardware is that the FPU may be repaired oreffectively replaced merely by storing new code in the FPU. New code maybe stored in an FPU using a process that is similar to the process bywhich software is updated. For example, a human technician may providethe code to the computer using a floppy diskette or by downloading thecode over a network. The technician may then instruct the computer tostore the new code in the FPU, a process which may typically beperformed quickly and without requiring the technician to open thecomputer housing or perform any physical modifications to the computer.Repairing an FPU can therefore be significantly less tedious,time-consuming and expensive than repairing a conventional hardwarecomponent.

Although an FRU (field-replaceable unit) need not be field-programmable,an FRU may include one or more FPUs (field-programmable units). An FRUmay therefore be field-programmable as well as field-replaceable. In aparticular computer system, it is possible for the FPU code stored in anFRU to be incompatible with other FPU code in the system or withhardware components of the system. Such incompatibilities may cause thesystem to malfunction. It is desirable to avoid such incompatibilitiesto maintain proper system function.

SUMMARY

Techniques are disclosed for ensuring that code in a field-replaceableunit (FRU) installed in a computer system is compatible with othercomponents of the computer system. The computer system may include aplurality of FRUs, each of which may have a particular revision number.Each of the FRUs may include one or more field-programmable units, eachof which may include its own code having its own revision number. Arevision compatibility matrix specifies mutually-compatible combinationsof FRU revisions and FPU code revisions. When a new FRU is installed inthe system, the revision compatibility matrix is used to determinewhether code in the new FRU is compatible with the other FRUs in thesystem. If the code in the new FRU is not compatible, the system mayidentify compatible code suitable for use in the new FRU and installsuch code in the new FRU.

Although certain embodiments of the present invention will now bedescribed in terms of method steps, such steps may be implemented ascomputer program instructions tangibly embodied in a computer-readablemedium. In one embodiment of the present invention, for example, acomputer-implemented method is provided for use in a computer systemincluding a first field-programmable unit including firstfield-programmable unit (FPU) code. The method includes steps of: (A)determining whether the first FPU code is compatible with the computersystem; and (B) if the first FPU code is determined not to be compatiblewith the computer system, notifying a user of the computer system of theincompatibility. The first field-programmable unit may befield-replaceable.

The computer system may further include a plurality offield-programmable units including a corresponding plurality of FPUcodes, and the step (A) may include a step of: (A)(1) determiningwhether the first FPU code is compatible with the plurality of FPUcodes. The computer system may further include a plurality offield-replaceable units, and the step (A) may further include a step of:(A)(2) determining whether the first FPU code is compatible with theplurality of field-replaceable units.

The computer system may further include a revision compatibilitydescriptor identifying a plurality of compatible combinations offield-replaceable units and field-programmable unit codes, and the step(A) may include a step of determining that the first FPU code iscompatible with the computer system if a combination of the first FPUcode, the plurality of FPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceableunits is among the plurality of compatible combinations offield-programmable unit codes and/or field-replaceable units identifiedby the revision compatibility descriptor.

The step (B) may include a step of: (B)(1) providing the user withinformation descriptive of second FPU code that is suitable for storagein the first field-programmable unit and that is compatible with thecomputer system. The step (A) may be performed in response toreplacement of a second field-programmable unit with the firstfield-programmable unit, and the second field-programmable unit mayinclude the second FPU code.

In another embodiment of the present invention, a computer-implementedmethod is provided for use in a computer system including a firstfield-programmable unit including first FPU code and a secondfield-programmable unit including second FPU code. The method includessteps of: (A) after replacement of the second field-programmable unit bythe first field-programmable unit, determining whether the first FPUcode is different from the second FPU code; and (B) notifying a user ofthe computer system that the first field-programmable unit isincompatible with the computer system if it is determined that the firstFPU code is different from the second FPU code.

The step (B) may include a step of providing the user with informationdescriptive of third FPU code that is suitable for storage in the firstfield-programmable unit and that is compatible with the computer system.The third FPU code may, for example, be the second FPU code.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, acomputer-implemented method is provided for use in a computer systemincluding a first field-programmable unit including first FPU code. Themethod includes steps of: (A) determining whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the computer system; (B) if the first FPU code isdetermined not to be compatible with the computer system, identifyingsecond FPU code that is compatible with the computer system and suitablefor installation in the first field-programmable unit; and (C)installing the second FPU code in the first field-programmable unit.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

As described in more detail below, the methods illustrated in thedrawings by flowcharts may be implemented by computer programs.

FIG. 1 is a flowchart of a method that is used in one embodiment of thepresent invention to ensure that code in an FRU is compatible with thecomputer system in which it has been installed;

FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a method for determining whether code in anewly-installed FRU is compatible with the computer system in which itis installed;

FIG. 3A is a flowchart of a method for identifying code installed in anFRU that has been removed from a computer system according to oneembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3B is a flowchart of a method for identifying code installed in anFRU that has been removed from a computer system according to anotherembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3C is a flowchart of a method for identifying code suitable forinstallation in an FRU that has been installed in a computer systemaccording to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method that is used in another embodiment ofthe present invention to ensure that code in an FRU is compatible withthe computer system in which it has been installed;

FIG. 5 is a diagram of a revision compatibility matrix according to oneembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 6A is a functional block diagram of a computer system prior to theinstallation of a new FRU according to one embodiment of the presentinvention; and

FIG. 6B is a functional block diagram of the computer system of FIG. 6Aafter the installation of a new FRU according to one embodiment of thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Techniques are disclosed for ensuring that code in a field-replaceableunit (FRU) installed in a computer system is compatible with othercomponents of the computer system. The computer system may include aplurality of FRUs, each of which may have a particular revision number.Each of the FRUs may include one or more field-programmable units, eachof which may include its own code having its own revision number. Arevision compatibility matrix specifies mutually-compatible combinationsof FRU revisions and FPU code revisions. When a new FRU is installed inthe system, the revision compatibility matrix is used to determinewhether code in the new FRU is compatible with the other FRUs in thesystem. If the code in the new FRU is not compatible, the system mayidentify compatible code suitable for use in the new FRU and installsuch code in the new FRU.

Referring to FIG. 1, a flowchart is shown of a method 100 that is usedin one embodiment of the present invention to ensure that code in anewly-installed FRU is compatible with the computer system in which ithas been installed. Referring to FIG. 6A, a functional block diagram isshown of a computer system 600 a in which the method 100 may be used.

The computer system 600 a may, for example, be a desktop computer,laptop computer, workstation, mainframe, or any other kind of computersystem. Although the computer system 600 a includes at least oneprocessor, main memory, a system bus, and the other components commonlyincluded in a computer system, such components are not shown in FIG. 6Afor ease of illustration. Rather, only those elements that are relevantto the discussion of the method 100 are shown in FIG. 6A.

In particular, the computer system 600 a includes four field-replaceableunits (FRUs) 608 a-d. FRUs 608 a-d may, for example, be implemented asprinted circuit assemblies (PCAs). FRUs 608 a-d include revision numbers624 a-d, respectively. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6A, each ofthe revision numbers 624 a-d represents a hardware revision number ofthe corresponding FRU. The revision numbers 624 a-d may, for example, bestored in serial EEPROMs on the PCAs that implement the FRUs 608 a-d.

FRUs 608 a-d are installed in FRU slots 616 a-d, respectively. The FRUslots 616 a-d need not be “slots,” but rather may more generally includeany kind of connective circuitry or other components for connecting theFRUs 608 a-d, respectively, to the system 600 a.

FRUs 608 a-d include field-programmable units (FPUs) 602 a-d,respectively. Field-programmable units 602 a-d include fieldprogrammable unit code 604 a-d, respectively. Code 604 a-d includesrevision numbers 622 a-d, respectively. As described in more detailbelow, each of the revision numbers 622 a-d represents a revision numberof the corresponding code 604 a-d.

FPUs 602 a-d may be any kind of FPUs, such as system firmware, embeddedenclosure processor firmware, or FPGAs. FPUs 602 a-d are installed inFPU slots 606 a-d, respectively. Like the FRU slots 616 a-d, the FPUslots 606 a-d may include any kind of connective circuitry or othercomponents for connecting the FPUs 602 a-d to the FRUs 608 a-d,respectively. In the embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 6A-6B, each of theslots 606 a-d is designed to receive an FPU of a particular type. Forexample, slot 606 a may be designed to receive firmware implementing thesystem BIOS, while slot 606 b may be designed to receive an FPGAimplementing a particular I/O controller.

Although four FRUs 608 a-d, four FPUs 602 a-d, and corresponding slots616 a-d and 606 a-d are shown in FIG. 6A for purposes of example, thesystem 600 a may include any number and kind of FRU and FPU in anycombination. In particular, an FRU may include, zero, one, or more FPUs.

Consider an example in which the FRU 608 a is replaced (FIG. 1—step102). For example, referring to FIG. 6B, a computer system 600 b isshown which is the same as computer system 600 a except that FRU 608 ahas been replaced with an FRU 608 e, which has a revision number 624 e,and which includes an FPU 602 e including code 604 e having revisionnumber 622 e. The reference numeral 600 is used herein to refergenerically to the computer systems 600 a-b when differences between thetwo are not relevant. As will be described in more detail below, therevision number 624 e of replacement FRU 608 e may be the same as ordiffer from the revision number-624 a of the original FRU 608 a, and thecode 604 e in replacement FPU 602 e may be the same as or differ fromthe code 604 a in original FPU 602 a. The replacement of FRU 608 a byFRU 608 e will typically be performed by a human operator in response tothe identification of a malfunction or other problem with original FRU608 a.

The method 100 identifies the new FRU 608 e (step 104). The system 600may, for example, include a compatibility verifier 610 that has accessto FRUs 608 b-e and which may perform step 104. The method 100 mayidentify the new FRU 608 e in any of a variety of ways. For example, themethod 100 may identify the new FRU 608 e by extracting its revisionnumber 624 e and the revision numbers of code in any FPUs in the new FRU608 e. In the present example, this would involve extracting the FRUrevision number 624 e and the FPU code revision number 622 e.

It is common for the first revision (also referred to as a “release”) ofan FRU or FPU code to have a revision number of 1 (or 1.0), and forsubsequent revisions to have higher revision numbers (such as 1.1 for aminor release and 2.0 for a major release). Different revisions of codefor the same FPU may, for example, include code that fixes bugs fromprevious revisions or that adds additional features to the FPU.

The term “field-programmable unit code” (FPU code) refers to a set ofcode intended for use in a field-programmable unit. For example, codes604 a-e are all field-programmable unit codes. A particular combinationof FRUs and field-programmable unit codes that may be installed in acomputer system is referred to herein as a “recipe.” For example, theparticular combination of FRUs 608 a-d and FPU codes 604 a-d installedin the system 600 a. (FIG. 6A) is an example of a recipe, as is theparticular combination of FRUs 608 b-e and FPU codes 604 b-e installedin the system 600 b (FIG. 6B). A particular recipe may, for example, berepresented as a list of FRU revision numbers and FPU code revisionnumbers. The term “revision” is used herein to refer generally both toFRU revisions and to FPU code revisions.

The combination of FRU revisions and FPU code revisions represented by aparticular recipe may or may not be compatible with each other. A recipemay, for example, specify a combination of codes which, if installed inthe FPUs in slots 606 a-d, will cause the computer system 600 a tomalfunction. A combination of FPU codes which, if installed in the FPUsin slots 606 a-d, do not interfere with each other's operation arereferred to herein as “mutually-compatible codes.” It is desirable thatonly recipes including mutually-compatible FPU codes be installed in acomputer system. More generally, a combination of FRU revisions and FPUcode revisions which, if installed in a computer system, do notinterfere with each other's operation are referred to herein as“mutually-compatible revisions.” A recipe which specifies a combinationof mutually-compatible revisions is referred to herein as a “compatiblerecipe.”

In one embodiment of the present invention, a revision compatibilitymatrix 500 specifies compatible recipes suitable for use in the computersystem 600. The revision compatibility matrix 500 may, for example, begenerated by installing and testing various combinations of FRUrevisions and FPU code revisions in computer system 600, identifyingcombinations of revisions that are mutually compatible, and recordingthe identified combinations of mutually-compatible revisions in therevision compatibility matrix 500.

Referring to FIG. 5, an example of the revision compatibility matrix 500is shown according to one embodiment of the present invention. Therevision compatibility matrix 500 shown in FIG. 5 includes eight rows(records) 502 a-h, each of which specifies a particular compatiblerecipe suitable for use in the computer system. Revision compatibilitymatrix 500 includes: (1) columns 504 a-d, corresponding to FPU slots 606a-d, respectively (as indicated by the parenthetical reference numeralsbelow columns 504 a-d); (2) columns 504 e-h, corresponding to FRU slots616 a-d, respectively (as indicated by the parenthetical referencenumerals below columns 504 e-h); and (3) column 504 i, which indicatesthe most-recently recognized recipe installed in the system 600.

Each of the FPU slots 606 a-d is referred to by a particular FPUidentifier (FPU ID) shown at the tops of columns 504 a-d. In particular,FPU slots 606 a-d are referred to by the FPU IDs A, B, C, and D,respectively, in FIG. 5. Similarly, each of the FRU slots 616 a-d isreferred to by a particular FRU identifier (FRU ID) shown at the tops ofcolumns 504 e-h.

Each row of the revision compatibility matrix 500 specifies a particularcompatible recipe as a set of FPU code revision numbers and FRU revisionnumbers. For example, row 502 h specifies a recipe in which: (1) coderevision 2 is stored in the FPU in slot 606 a; (2) code revision 0 isstored in the FPU in slot 606 b; (3) code revision 3 is stored in theFPU in slot 606 c; (4) code revision 2 is stored in the FPU in slot 606d; (5) an FRU having revision 0 is installed in FRU slot 616 a; (6) anFRU having revision 0 is installed in FRU slot 616 b; (7) an FRU havingrevision 3 is installed in FRU slot 616 c; and (8) an FRU havingrevision 3 is installed in FRU slot 616 d.

Note that in the present embodiment a particular set of FPU code may beidentified by a combination of FPU ID and revision number. For example,the combination of FPU ID “A” and revision number “2” identifies FPUcode for use in FPU slot 606 a and having revision number 2. Thisparticular scheme for identifying FPU code, however, is presented merelyfor purposes of example and does not constitute a limitation of thepresent invention. Other identification schemes may alternatively beused to identify particular FPU code in the revision compatibilitymatrix 500. The same is true for FRU revision numbering.

Returning to FIG. 1, the method 100 may obtain the revisioncompatibility matrix 500 (step 106). For example, as shown in FIG. 6B,the revision compatibility matrix 500 may be provided as an input to thecompatibility verifier 610. The method 100 may obtain the revisioncompatibility matrix 500 in any of a variety of ways. For example, themethod 100 may download the revision compatibility matrix 500 over anetwork from a known remote location using techniques that arewell-known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The revisioncompatibility matrix 500 need not, however, be stored remotely. Therevision compatibility matrix 500 may, for example, be stored in thesystem 600, in which case the method 100 may perform step 106 byobtaining, for example, a pointer to the matrix 500. In other words,step 106 need not require transmitting the matrix 500 over a networkconnection or copying the matrix 500.

The method 100 determines whether the new FRU (in this example, FRU 608e) is compatible with the computer system 600 b (step 108). If themethod 100 determines that the new FRU 608 e is compatible with thecomputer system 600 b, the method 100 terminates (step 120).

If the method 100 determines that the new FRU 608 e is not compatiblewith the computer system 600 b, the method 100 notifies a user 616 ofthe system 600 b of the incompatibility (step 110). For example, thecompatibility verifier 610 may provide an incompatibility notice 612 tothe user 616, such as by displaying an onscreen message notifying theuser 616 of the incompatibility.

If the incompatibility identified in step 108 was an FPU codeincompatibility, the method 100 identifies code suitable forinstallation in the new FRU 608 e and that is compatible with thecomputer system 600 b (step 112). Such code is referred to herein as“compatible code.” For example, referring to FIG. 6B, assume that themethod 100 identifies compatible code 620 suitable for installation inthe new FPU 602 e. Note that if more than one incompatible FPU coderevision is identified in step 108, more than one set of compatible codemay be identified in step 112.

The method 100 provides the user 616 with information descriptive of thecompatible code 620 identified in step 112 (step 114). For example, thecompatibility verifier 610 may provide the user 616 with a compatibilityrevision information message 614 describing the compatible code 620identified in step 112. The message 614 may, for example, include aUniform Resource Locator (URL) or other descriptor of a location fromwhich the code 620 may be downloaded. In one embodiment of the presentinvention, the user 616 may use the information in the message 614 toobtain and install the compatible code 620 in the new FPU 602 e.

In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, however, the method 100automatically obtains the compatible code 620 identified in step 112(step 116). The system 600 b may, for example, include a code installer618 which downloads the code 620 identified in step 112 over a networkfrom a remote location. The location of the code 620 may be determinedbased on the FPU slot with which the code 620 is associated and therevision number of the code 620. As an alternative to downloading thecode 620 over a network, the system 600 b may include all of the coderevisions listed in the revision compatibility matrix 500, and the codeinstaller 618 may obtain the code 620 from within the system 600 basedon the FPU slot with which the code 620 is associated and the revisionnumber of the code 620. The method 100 may also inform the user 616 thatthe code 620 is going to be installed in the new FPU 602 e and providethe user 616 with the option of aborting the installation if desired.

Once the code 620 has been obtained, the method 100 installs the code620 in the FPU 602 e installed in the FPU slot 606 a (step 118). Step118 may, for example, be performed by the code installer 618. Uponcompletion of step 118, the method 100 terminates (step 120). Uponcompletion of the method 100, the new FPU 602 e should be able tooperate in a manner that is compatible with the remaining FPUs 602 b-dand with the other components of the computer system 600.

Having described in general the operation of the method 100, variousembodiments of the present invention will now be described in moredetail. Recall that the method 100 may determine whether the new FRU 608e is compatible with the computer system 600 b (FIG. 1, step 108).Referring to FIG. 2, a flowchart is shown which illustrates particulartechniques that may be used to determine whether the new FRU 608 e iscompatible with the computer system 600 b.

Referring to FIG. 2, the method 108 identifies the revisions in the newFRU 608 e (step 202). Step 202 may include, for example, identifying therevision number 624 e of the FRU 608 e itself, the revision number(s) ofFPU code installed in any FPUs in the FRU 608 e (e.g., revision number622 e), or both.

The method 108 identifies the (FRU and/or FPU code) revisions in theother FRUs 608 b-d in the system 600 b (step 204). The method 108 mayidentify these revisions in the same way in which it identifies therevisions in the new FRU 608 e or in any other manner.

In one embodiment of the present invention, the result of performingsteps 202 and 204 is a list of FRU revision numbers and FPU coderevision numbers reflecting the FRU revisions and FPU code revisionscurrently installed in the system 600. For example, the result of steps202 and 204 may be a list of the FRU revision numbers 624 b-e and theFPU code revision numbers 622 b-e.

The method 108 searches the revision compatibility matrix 500 for arecipe specifying the combination of revisions identified in steps 202and 204 (step 206). For example, if the code revision numbers of theFPUs 602 e, 602 b, 602 c, and 602 d are 1, 1, 3, and 2, respectively,and the revision numbers of the FRUs 608 e, 608 b, 608 c, and 608 d are2, 1, 0, and 2, respectively, then the method 108 searches in step 206for a recipe specifying the combination 11322102. The method 108 wouldfind such a recipe in row 502 f of the matrix 500.

The method 108 determines whether a recipe specifying the combination ofrevisions identified in steps 202 and 204 was found in step 206 (step208). If such a recipe was found, the method 108 proceeds to step 120 ofmethod 100 (FIG. 1), in which case the method 100 terminates. If no suchrecipe was found, the method 108 proceeds to step 110 of method 100(FIG. 1)

It was stated generally above that the method 100 may identify code thatis compatible with the computer system 600 b and that is suitable forinstallation in one or more FPUs in the new FRU 608 e (step 112), andthat the method 100 may provide the user 616 with information about theidentified code (step 114). Referring to FIG. 3A, a flowchart is shownof a method that is used in one embodiment of the present invention toperform steps 112 and 114. FIGS. 3A-3C will be described with respect toa particular example in which the code 622 e in the new FPU 602 e wasfound to be incompatible in step 108. The methods shown in FIGS. 3A-3Cmay, however, be applied more generally to identify compatible codesuitable for installation in one or more FPUs in an FRU.

The method shown in FIG. 3A identifies code suitable for installation inthe new FRU 608 e by identifying code that was installed in thepreviously-installed FRU 608 a (step 302). For example, if the code 622e in the new FPU 602 e was determined to be incompatible with the system600 b in step 108, the method shown in FIG. 3A may identify the code 604a that was installed in the previously-installed FPU 602 a. The methodshown in FIG. 3A informs the user 616 of compatible code for the new FRU608 e by informing the user 616 of the previously-installed code (e.g.,code 604 a) (step 304), such as by providing the revision number 622 aof the code 604 a to the user 616.

The method 100 may identify the code 604 a installed in thepreviously-installed FRU 608 a (step 302) in any of a variety of ways.The computer system 600 b may, for example, include a record identifyingthe code 604 a installed in the FPU 604 a. For example, referring againto FIG. 5, current recipe column 504 i may specify the recipe installedin the system 600 prior to installation of the new FRU 608 e. Thisrecipe is referred to herein as the “current recipe” even though it maynot reflect the actual system recipe once the new FRU 608 e has beeninstalled.

In the example shown in FIG. 5, the matrix row representing the currentrecipe is indicated by a special value such as (“Y”, “True”, or 1) inthe current recipe column 504 i. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, thevalue of the current recipe column 504 i of record 502 c is equal to“Y”, indicating that the recipe represented by record 502 c is thecurrent recipe. The value “N” is stored in the current recipe column 504i of the remaining records 502 a-b and 502 d-h, indicating that they donot represent the current recipe.

Referring to FIG. 3B, a flowchart is shown of a method that may be usedto identify the FPU code 604 a installed in the previous FRU 608 a (FIG.3A, step 302) according to one embodiment of the present invention. Inparticular, the method shown in FIG. 3B may identify the code 604 ainstalled in the previous FPU 602 a by identifying the system recipethat existed prior to installation of the new FRU 608 e (step 310). Themethod 100 may identify the previous system recipe by, for example,identifying the record in the revision compatibility matrix 500 that hasa value of “Y” in its current recipe column 504 i.

The method shown in FIG. 3B may identify the code revision that thecurrent recipe specifies for the FPU slot in which the new FPU 602 e isinstalled (step 312). The method may identify this code revision byidentifying the revision number stored in the column corresponding tothe previous FPU 602 a (e.g., column 504 a). In the example shown inFIG. 5, this revision number is zero (i.e., the value stored in row 502c, column 504 a).

It should be appreciated that the use of the current recipe column 502i, and the techniques just described for using the current recipe column502 i, are provided merely for purposes of example and do not constitutelimitations of the present invention. Other techniques may be used toidentify the code that was installed in a previously-installed FPU. Forexample, the system 600 b may include a separate list indicating thecurrent recipe and one or more prior recipes. Such a list may be used toidentify code previously installed in a particular FPU slot.

Referring to FIG. 3C, a flowchart is shown of a method that is used inanother embodiment of the present invention to identify compatible codesuitable for installation in one or more FPUs in the new FRU 608 ewithout use of the current recipe column 504 i. The method shown in FIG.3C identifies a recipe in the revision compatibility matrix 500 that isconsistent with the FRU revisions of all FRUs installed in the system600 and with the code revisions installed in the old FPUs (e.g., theFPUs 606 b-d) (step 320).

Assume, for example, that FRUs 608 e, 608 b, 608 c, and 608 d haverevision numbers 2, 1, 0, and 2, respectively, and that FPUs 602 b-dinclude code having revision numbers 1, 3, and 2, respectively. In sucha case, the method shown in FIG. 3C may identify row 502 f in step 320as representing a recipe that is consistent with the installed FRUs 608b-e and with the code revisions installed in FPUs 602 b-d. Row 502 f maybe identified using any of a variety of computer-implementedpattern-matching techniques that are well-known to those of ordinaryskill in the art.

The method shown in FIG. 3C may identify, in the row identified in step320, the code revision number(s) for the FPU(s) installed in the new FRU608 e (step 322). In the present example, the new FPU 602 e is installedin slot 606 a, corresponding to column 504 a in the matrix 500. Themethod may therefore identify the code revision number stored in column504 a of row 502 f in step 322. This code revision number identifies acode revision that is suitable for installation in the new FPU 602 e andthat is compatible with the code revisions installed in the other FPUs602 b-d and with the revisions of the FRUs 608 b-e.

If the revision compatibility matrix 500 includes multiple records thatare consistent with the FRU revisions and FPU code revisions currentlyinstalled in the system 600, the method may (in step 320) identify suchmultiple records and identify (in step 322) multiple code revisionnumbers corresponding to the FPU slot in the which the new FPU 602 e isinstalled. The method 100 may, in such a case, inform the user 616 ofthe multiple identified code revisions, thereby providing the user 616with a choice of code revisions to install in the new FPU 602 e. Themethod 100 may, for example, provide the user 616 with additionalinformation to assist in the selection of an appropriate code revisionto install in the new FPU 602 e. For example, the method 100 may listall compatible code revisions in descending order of revision number, sothat the most recent revision is listed first. Although in the typicalcase the most recent revision is the most desirable revision to install,in some cases the user 616 may choose to install an earlier revisionbased on considerations such as stability or feature set.

Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart is shown of a method 400 that is usedin another embodiment of the present invention to ensure that FPU codein the newly-installed FRU 608 e is compatible with the computer system600 b in which it has been installed.

The original FRU 608 a is removed from the FRU slot 616 a and replacedwith the new FRU 608 e (step 402). As described above with respect toFIG. 1, this step may be performed by a human technician. The method 400identifies the new FRU 608 e (step 404) and obtains the revisioncompatibility matrix 500 (step 406). Steps 404 and 406 may be performedin the same manner as steps 104 and 106 in the method 100 (FIG. 1).

The method 400 determines whether the FPU code installed in the new FPU602 e (e.g., FPU code 604 e) is different than the code (e.g., code 604a) installed in the old FRU 608 a (step 408). The method 400 may makethis determination in any of a variety of ways. For example, the method400 may identify the code revision numbers of the old code 604 a and thenew code 604 e using any of the techniques described above with respectto FIGS. 3A-3C, and then compare the code revision numbers to each otherto determine whether they are the same.

If the old code 604 e and the new code 604 a are the same, the method400 terminates (step 416). Otherwise, the method 400 informs the user616 of the FPU code 604 a in the old FRU 608 a (step 410). The old FPUcode 604 a is an example of compatible code that may be installed in thenew FPU 602 e to make it compatible with the FRUs 608 b-e and theremaining FPUs 602 b-d. The method 400 may inform the user 616 of theold FPU code 604 a in any of a variety of ways, such as by providing theuser 616 with the code revision number of the old FPU code 604 a.

The method 400 obtains the compatible code identified in step 410 (step412) and installs the compatible code in the new FRU 608 e (step 414).In the present example, step 414 may be implemented by installing theold FPU code 604 a in the new FPU 602 e. Steps 412 and 414 may, forexample, be performed in the same manner as steps 116 and 118 in method100 (FIG. 1). Upon installation of the compatible code in the new FRU608 e, the new FRU 608 e should be able to operate in a manner that iscompatible with the remaining FRUs 608 b-d.

One advantage of the techniques disclosed herein is that they facilitatethe process of ensuring that the FPU code in a newly-installed FRU iscompatible with the other FRUs in a computer system and the FPU codeinstalled in them. In particular, the techniques disclosed herein may beused to automatically ascertain whether the code 604 e in the new FPU602 e is compatible with the code 604 b-d in the remaining FPUs 602 b-d.As described above, in conventional systems, upon installing a new FRUin a computer system, the user must manually determine whether the newFRU and the code installed in it are compatible with the remaining FRUsand the code installed in them. This typically requires the user torefer to a table that indicates the compatibility of the FRU and itscode with other FRUs and their code. This can be tedious,time-consuming, and error prone. By enabling the compatibility-checkingprocess to be performed automatically by computer operations, thetechniques disclosed herein may enable compatibility-checking to beperformed more quickly, easily, and reliably than is possible manually.

Furthermore, by enabling the automatic installation of compatible codein the new FRU 608 e, the techniques disclosed herein further simplifythe process of ensuring that the code 604 e in the newly-installed FRU608 e is compatible with the code 604 b-d in the remaining FRUs 608 b-d.In particular, automatic installation may both decrease the total amountof time required to install compatible code in the new FRU 608 e andeliminate the possibility that incorrect code will be installed in theFRU 608 e.

It is to be understood that although the invention has been describedabove in terms of particular embodiments, the foregoing embodiments areprovided as illustrative only, and do not limit or define the scope ofthe invention. Various other embodiments, including but not limited tothe following, are also within the scope of the claims.

Elements and components described herein may be further divided intoadditional components or joined together to form fewer components forperforming the same functions.

Although the revision compatibility matrix 500 is illustrated in FIG. 5as a two-dimensional matrix, this is not, a limitation of the presentinvention. Rather the revision compatibility matrix 500 may beimplemented in the form of any appropriate data structure and maytherefore be considered more generally to be a “revision compatibilitydescriptor” that describes the compatibility of various FPU codes witheach other. For example, although the particular revision compatibilitymatrix 500 shown in FIG. 5 lists complete sets of mutually-compatibleFRUs and FPU codes, the revision compatibility matrix 500 may, forexample, indicate pairs, triplets, or other combinations ofmutually-compatible FRUs and FPU codes that do not specify a completerecipe.

Although the particular embodiment of the revision compatibility matrix500 shown in FIG. 5 uses integral revision numbers to identify FRUs andFPU codes, this is not a limitation of the present invention. Rather,any kind of identifying information may be used to specify particularFRUs and FPU codes and to determine whether two particular instances ofFRUs or FPU codes are the same or differ from each other. For example,the bits in sets of FPU code may be compared directly to each other todetermine whether they are the same, thereby eliminating the need to useseparate revision numbers or other identifying information.

The revision compatibility matrix 500 may or may not be storedpermanently in the computer system 600. For example, the revisioncompatibility matrix 500 may be downloadable from a remote location intothe computer system 600 at or around the time that the original FRU 608a is replaced with the new FRU 608 e. The matrix 500 may be used toperform the functions disclosed herein and then be deleted.

Computer systems suitable for use in embodiments of the presentinvention may include any number of FPUs and/or FRUs in any combination.An FRU may include zero or more FPUs. Furthermore, although the FPUs 602a-e illustrated in FIGS. 6A-6B are shown as distinct sub-components ofthe FRUs 608 a-e, respectively, this is not a requirement of the presentinvention. Rather, an FRU may itself be an FPU which contains its owncode.

The method steps, techniques and elements (such as the compatibilityverifier 610, code installer 618, and revision compatibility matrix 500)described above may be implemented, for example, in hardware, software,firmware, or any combination thereof. The techniques described above maybe implemented in one or more computer programs executing on aprogrammable computer including a processor, a storage medium readableby the processor (including, for example, volatile and non-volatilememory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at leastone output device. Program code may be applied to input entered usingthe input device to perform the functions described and to generateoutput. The output may be provided to one or more output devices.

Each computer program within the scope of the claims below may beimplemented in any programming language, such as assembly language,machine language, a high-level procedural programming language, or anobject-oriented programming language. The programming language may, forexample, be a compiled or interpreted programming-language.

Each such computer program may be implemented in a computer programproduct tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device forexecution by a computer processor. Method steps of the invention may beperformed by a computer processor executing a program tangibly embodiedon a computer-readable medium to perform functions of the invention byoperating on input and generating output. Suitable processors include,by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors.Generally, the processor receives instructions and data from a read-onlymemory and/or a random access memory. Storage devices suitable fortangibly embodying computer program instructions include, for example,all forms of non-volatile memory, such as semiconductor memory devices,including EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks suchas internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; andCD-ROMS. Any of the foregoing may be supplemented by, or incorporatedin, specially-designed ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).A computer can generally also receive programs and data from a storagemedium such as an internal disk (not shown) or a removable disk. Theseelements will also be found in a conventional desktop or workstationcomputer as well as other computers suitable for executing computerprograms implementing the methods described herein, which may be used inconjunction with any digital print engine or marking engine, displaymonitor, or other raster output device capable of producing color orgray scale pixels on paper, film, display screen, or other outputmedium.

1. In a computer system including a first field-programmable unitincluding first field-programmable unit (FPU) code, acomputer-implemented method comprising steps of: (A) determining whetherthe first FPU code is compatible with the computer system; and (B) ifthe first FPU code is determined not to be compatible with the computersystem, notifying a user of the computer system of the incompatibility.2. The method of claim 1, wherein the computer system further comprisesa plurality of field-programmable units including a correspondingplurality of FPU codes, and wherein the step (A) comprises a step of:(A)(1) determining whether the first FPU code is compatible with theplurality of FPU codes.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the computersystem further comprises a plurality of field-replaceable units, andwherein the step (A) further comprises a step of: (A)(2) determiningwhether the first FPU code is compatible with the plurality offield-replaceable units.
 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the computersystem further comprises a revision compatibility descriptor identifyinga plurality of compatible combinations of field-programmable unit codes,and wherein the step (A)(1) comprises a step of determining that thefirst FPU code is compatible with the plurality of FPU codes if acombination of the first FPU code and the plurality of FPU codes isamong the plurality of compatible combinations of field-programmableunit codes identified by the revision compatibility descriptor.
 5. Themethod of claim 2, wherein the computer system further comprises aplurality of field-replaceable units and a revision compatibilitydescriptor identifying a plurality of compatible combinations offield-programmable unit codes and field-replaceable units, and whereinthe step (A) comprises a step of determining that the first FPU code iscompatible with the computer system if a combination of the first FPUcode, the plurality of FPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceableunits is among the plurality of combination combinations offield-programmable unit codes and field-replaceable units identified bythe revision compatibility descriptor.
 6. The method of claim 1, whereinthe first field-programmable unit comprises a field-replaceable unit. 7.The method of claim 1, wherein the step (A) is performed in response toinstallation of the first field-programmable unit in the computersystem.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the step (B) comprises a stepof: (B)(1) providing the user with information descriptive of second FPUcode that is suitable for storage in the first field-programmable unitand that is compatible with the computer system.
 9. The method of claim8, wherein the step (A) is performed in response to replacement of asecond field-programmable unit with the first field-programmable unit,and wherein the second field-programmable unit includes the second FPUcode.
 10. The method of claim 8, and wherein the step (B)(1) comprisessteps of: (B)(1)(a) identifying a compatible combination offield-programmable unit codes previously installed in the computersystem; (B)(1)(b) identifying, in the identified combination ofpreviously-installed field-programmable unit codes, an identifier of FPUcode suitable for installation in the first field-programmable unit; and(B)(1)(c) providing the user with information descriptive of the FPUcode identified by the identifier.
 11. The method of claim 8, whereinthe computer system further comprises a plurality of FPUs including acorresponding plurality of FPU codes, and a revision compatibilitydescriptor identifying a plurality of combinations of compatiblefield-programmable unit codes, and wherein the step (B)(1) comprisessteps of: (B)(1)(a) identifying, in the revision compatibilitydescriptor, a record describing the plurality of FPU codes; (B)(1)(b)identifying, in the identified record, a code identifier identifying FPUcode suitable for use in the first field-programmable unit; and(B)(1)(c) providing the user with information descriptive of the FPUcode identified by the code identifier.
 12. In a computer systemincluding a first field-programmable unit including firstfield-programmable unit (FPU) code, an apparatus comprising:determination means for determining whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the computer system; and notification means fornotifying a user of the computer system that the first FPU code is notcompatible with the computer system if the determination meansdetermines that the first FPU code is not compatible with the computersystem.
 13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the computer systemfurther comprises a plurality of field-programmable units including acorresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein the determinationmeans comprises: means for determining whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the plurality of FPU codes.
 14. The apparatus of claim13, wherein the computer system further comprises a plurality offield-replaceable units, and wherein the determination means furthercomprises: means for determining whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the plurality of field-replaceable units.
 15. Theapparatus of claim 13, further comprising a revision compatibilitydescriptor identifying a plurality of compatible combinations offield-programmable unit codes, and wherein the determination meanscomprises means for determining that the first FPU code is compatiblewith the plurality of FPU codes if a combination of the first FPU codeand the plurality of FPU codes is among the plurality of compatiblecombinations of field-programmable unit codes identified by the revisioncompatibility descriptor.
 16. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein thecomputer system further comprises a plurality of field-replaceableunits, wherein the apparatus further comprises a revision compatibilitydescriptor identifying a plurality of compatible combinations offield-programmable unit codes and field-replaceable units, and whereinthe determination means comprises means for determining that the firstFPU code is compatible with the computer system if a combination of thefirst FPU code, the plurality of FPU codes, and the plurality offield-replaceable units is among the plurality of combinationcombinations of field-programmable unit codes and field-replaceableunits identified by the revision compatibility descriptor.
 17. Theapparatus of claim 2, wherein the notification means comprises means forproviding the user with information descriptive of second FPU code thatis suitable for storage in the first field-programmable unit and that iscompatible with the computer system.
 18. A storage medium readable by acomputer in a computer system including a first field-programmable unit,the first field-programmable unit including first field-programmableunit (FPU) code, the storage medium tangibly embodying programinstructions executable by the computer to perform method steps of: (A)determining whether the first FPU code is compatible with the computersystem; and (B) if the first FPU code is determined not to be compatiblewith the computer system, notifying a user of the computer system of theincompatibility.
 19. The storage medium of claim 18, wherein thecomputer system further comprises a plurality of field-programmableunits including a corresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein thestep (A) comprises a step of: (A)(1) determining whether the first FPUcode is compatible with the plurality of FPU codes.
 20. The storagemedium of claim 19, wherein the computer system further comprises aplurality of field-replaceable units, and wherein the step (A) furthercomprises a step of: (A)(2) determining whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the plurality of field-replaceable units.
 21. Thestorage medium of claim 19, wherein the computer system furthercomprises a revision compatibility descriptor identifying a plurality ofcompatible combinations of field-programmable unit codes, and whereinthe step (A)(1) comprises a step of determining that the first FPU codeis compatible with the plurality of FPU codes if a combination of thefirst FPU code and the plurality of FPU codes is among the plurality ofcompatible combinations of field-programmable unit codes identified bythe revision compatibility descriptor.
 22. The storage medium of claim19, wherein the computer system further comprises a plurality offield-replaceable units and a revision compatibility descriptoridentifying a plurality of compatible combinations of field-programmableunit codes and field-replaceable units, and wherein the step (A)comprises a step of determining that the first FPU code is compatiblewith the computer system if a combination of the first FPU code, theplurality of FPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceable units isamong the plurality of combination combinations of field-programmableunit codes and field-replaceable units identified by the revisioncompatibility descriptor.
 23. The storage medium of claim 18, whereinthe first field-programmable unit comprises a field-replaceable unit.24. A computer system comprising: a first field-programmable unit (FPU)including first FPU code; a compatibility verifier coupled to the firstFPU and operable to determine whether the first FPU code is compatiblewith the computer system, and to notify a user of the computer system ofthe incompatibility if the first FPU code is determined not to becompatible with the computer system.
 25. The computer system of claim24, further comprising a plurality of field-programmable units includinga corresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein the compatibilityverifier is further operable to determine whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the plurality of FPU codes.
 26. The computer system ofclaim 25, further comprising a plurality of field-replaceable units, andwherein the compatibility verifier is further operable to determinewhether the first FPU code is compatible with the plurality offield-replaceable units.
 27. The computer system of claim 25, furthercomprising a revision compatibility descriptor identifying a pluralityof compatible combinations of field-programmable unit codes, and whereinthe compatibility verifier is operable to determine that the first FPUcode is compatible with the plurality of FPU codes if a combination ofthe first FPU code and the plurality of FPU codes is among the pluralityof compatible combinations of field-programmable unit codes identifiedby the revision compatibility descriptor.
 28. The computer system ofclaim 25, further comprising a plurality of field-replaceable units anda revision compatibility descriptor identifying a plurality ofcompatible combinations of field-programmable unit codes andfield-replaceable units, and wherein the compatibility verifier isoperable to determine that the first FPU code is compatible with thecomputer system if a combination of the first FPU code, the plurality ofFPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceable units is among theplurality of combination combinations of field-programmable unit codesand field-replaceable units identified by the revision compatibilitydescriptor.
 29. The computer system of claim 24, wherein the firstfield-programmable unit comprises a field-replaceable unit.
 30. In acomputer system including a first field-programmable unit includingfirst FPU code and a second field-programmable unit including second FPUcode, a computer-implemented method comprising steps of: (A) afterreplacement of the second field-programmable unit by the firstfield-programmable unit, determining whether the first FPU code isdifferent from the second FPU code; and (B) notifying a user of thecomputer system that the first field-programmable unit is incompatiblewith the computer system if it is determined that the first FPU code isdifferent from the second FPU code.
 31. The method of claim 30, whereinthe first field-programmable unit comprises a field-replaceable unit.32. The method of claim 30, wherein the step (B) comprises a step of:(B)(1) providing the user with information descriptive of third FPU codethat is suitable for storage in the first field-programmable unit andthat is compatible with the computer system.
 33. The method of claim 32,wherein the third FPU code comprises the second FPU code.
 34. The methodof claim 32, wherein the step (B)(1) comprises steps of: (B)(1)(a)identifying a combination of compatible field-programmable unit codespreviously installed in the computer system; (B)(1)(b) identifying, inthe identified combination of previously-installed field-programmableunit codes, an identifier of the second FPU code; and (B)(1)(c)providing the user with information descriptive of the second FPU code.35. In a computer system including a first field-programmable unitincluding first FPU code and a second field-programmable unit includingsecond FPU code, an apparatus comprising: determination means fordetermining, after replacement of the second field-programmable unit bythe first field-programmable unit, whether the first FPU code isdifferent from the second FPU code; and notification means for notifyinga user of the computer system that the first field-programmable unit isincompatible with the computer system if it is determined that the firstFPU code is different from the second FPU code.
 36. The apparatus ofclaim 35, wherein the notification means comprises information provisionmeans for providing the user with information descriptive of third FPUcode that is suitable for storage in the first field-programmable unitand that is compatible with the computer system.
 37. The apparatus ofclaim 24, wherein the third FPU code comprises the second FPU code. 38.The apparatus of claim 36, wherein the information provision meanscomprises: means for identifying a combination of compatiblefield-programmable unit codes previously installed in the computersystem; means for identifying, in the identified combination ofpreviously-installed field-programmable unit codes, an identifier of thesecond FPU code; and means for providing the user with informationdescriptive of the second FPU code.
 39. A storage medium readable by acomputer in a computer system including a first field-programmable unit(FPU) and a second FPU, the first FPU including first FPU code, thesecond FPU including second FPU code, the storage medium tangiblyembodying program instructions executable by the computer to performmethod steps of: (A) after replacement of the second FPU by the firstFPU, determining whether the first FPU code is different from the secondFPU code; and (B) notifying a user of the computer system that the firstFPU is incompatible with the computer system if it is determined thatthe first FPU code is different from the second FPU code.
 40. Thestorage medium of claim 39, wherein the first FPU comprises afield-replaceable unit.
 41. The storage medium of claim 39, wherein thestep (B) comprises a step of: (B)(1) providing the user with informationdescriptive of third FPU code that is suitable for storage in the firstFPU and that is compatible with the computer system.
 42. A computersystem comprising: a first field-programmable unit (FPU) comprisingfirst FPU code; a second FPU comprising second FPU code; and acompatibility verifier coupled to the first FPU, the compatibilityverifier being operable to determine whether the first FPU code isdifferent from the second FPU code and, if the first FPU code isdetermined to be different from the second FPU code, to notify a user ofthe computer system that the first FPU code is incompatible with thecomputer system.
 43. The computer system of claim 42, wherein the firstFPU comprises a field-replaceable unit.
 44. The computer system of claim42, wherein the compatibility verifier is operable to provide the userwith information descriptive of third FPU code that is suitable forstorage in the first FPU and that is compatible with the computersystem.
 45. In a computer system including a first field-programmableunit including first FPU code, a computer-implemented method comprisingsteps of: (A) determining whether the first FPU code is compatible withthe computer system; (B) if the first FPU code is determined not to becompatible with the computer system, identifying second FPU code that iscompatible with the computer system and suitable for installation in thefirst field-programmable unit; and (C) installing the second FPU code inthe first field-programmable unit.
 46. The method of claim 45, whereinthe computer system further comprises a plurality of field-programmableunits including a corresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein thestep (A) comprises a step of: (A)(1) determining whether the first FPUcode is compatible with the plurality of FPU codes.
 47. The method ofclaim 46, wherein the computer system further comprises a plurality offield-replaceable units, and wherein the step (A) further comprises astep of: (A)(2) determining whether the first FPU code is compatiblewith the plurality of field-replaceable units.
 48. The method of claim46, wherein the computer system further comprises a revisioncompatibility descriptor identifying a plurality of compatiblecombinations of FPU codes, and wherein the step (A)(1) comprises a stepof determining that the first FPU code is compatible with the pluralityof FPU codes if a combination of the first FPU code and the plurality ofFPU codes is among the plurality of compatible combinations of FPUidentified by the revision compatibility descriptor.
 49. The method ofclaim 46, wherein the computer system further comprises a plurality offield-replaceable units and a revision compatibility descriptoridentifying a plurality of compatible combinations of field-programmableunit codes and field-replaceable units, and wherein the step (A)comprises a step of determining that the first FPU code is compatiblewith the computer system if a combination of the first FPU code, theplurality of FPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceable units isamong the plurality of combination combinations of FPU codes andfield-replaceable units identified by the revision compatibilitydescriptor.
 50. The method of claim 45, wherein the firstfield-programmable unit comprises a field-replaceable unit.
 51. Themethod of claim 45, wherein the step (A) is performed in response toinstallation of the first field-programmable unit in the computersystem.
 52. In a computer system including a first field-programmableunit including first FPU code, an apparatus comprising: determinationmeans for determining whether the first FPU code is compatible with thecomputer system; identification means for identifying second FPU codethat is compatible with the computer system and suitable forinstallation in the first field-programmable unit if the first FPU codeis determined not to be compatible with the computer system; andinstallation means for installing the second FPU code in the firstfield-programmable unit.
 53. The apparatus of claim 52, wherein thecomputer system further comprises a plurality of field-programmableunits including a corresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein thedetermination means comprises: means for determining whether the firstFPU code is compatible with the plurality of FPU codes.
 54. Theapparatus of claim 53, wherein the computer system further comprises aplurality of field-replaceable units, and wherein the determinationmeans further comprises: means for determining whether the first FPUcode is compatible with the plurality of field-replaceable units. 55.The apparatus of claim 53, wherein the computer system further comprisesa revision compatibility descriptor identifying a plurality ofcompatible combinations of FPU codes, and wherein the determinationmeans comprises means for determining that the first FPU code iscompatible with the plurality of FPU codes if a combination of the firstFPU code and the plurality of FPU codes is among the plurality ofcompatible combinations of FPU identified by the revision compatibilitydescriptor.
 56. The apparatus of claim 53, wherein the computer systemfurther comprises a plurality of field-replaceable units and a revisioncompatibility descriptor identifying a plurality of compatiblecombinations of field-programmable unit codes and field-replaceableunits, and wherein the determination means comprises means fordetermining that the first FPU code is compatible with the computersystem if a combination of the first FPU code, the plurality of FPUcodes, and the plurality of field-replaceable units is among theplurality of combination combinations of FPU codes and field-replaceableunits identified by the revision compatibility descriptor.
 57. A storagemedium readable by a computer in a computer system including a firstfield-programmable unit (FPU) including first FPU code, the storagemedium tangibly embodying program instructions executable by thecomputer to perform method steps of: (A) determining whether the firstFPU code is compatible with the computer system; (B) if the first FPUcode is determined not to be compatible with the computer system,identifying second FPU code that is compatible with the computer systemand suitable for installation in the first field-programmable unit; and(C) installing the second FPU code in the first field-programmable unit.58. The storage medium of claim 57, wherein the computer system furthercomprises a plurality of field-programmable units including acorresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein the step (A) comprisesa step of: (A)(1) determining whether the first FPU code is compatiblewith the plurality of FPU codes.
 59. The storage medium of claim 58,wherein the computer system further comprises a plurality offield-replaceable units, and wherein the step (A) further comprises astep of: (A)(2) determining whether the first FPU code is compatiblewith the plurality of field-replaceable units.
 60. The storage medium ofclaim 58, wherein the computer system further comprises a revisioncompatibility descriptor identifying a plurality of compatiblecombinations of FPU codes, and wherein the step (A)(1) comprises a stepof determining that the first FPU code is compatible with the pluralityof FPU codes if a combination of the first FPU code and the plurality ofFPU codes is among the plurality of compatible combinations of FPUidentified by the revision compatibility descriptor.
 61. The storagemedium of claim 58, wherein the computer system further comprises aplurality of field-replaceable units and a revision compatibilitydescriptor identifying a plurality of compatible combinations offield-programmable unit codes and field-replaceable units, and whereinthe step (A) comprises a step of determining that the first FPU code iscompatible with the computer system if a combination of the first FPUcode, the plurality of FPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceableunits is among the plurality of combination combinations of FPU codesand field-replaceable units identified by the revision compatibilitydescriptor.
 62. A computer system comprising: a first field-programmableunit (FPU) including first FPU code; a compatibility verifier coupled tothe first FPU and operable to determine whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the computer system and, if the first FPU code isdetermined not to be compatible with the computer system, to identifysecond FPU code that is compatible with the computer system and suitablefor installation in the first field-programmable unit; and a codeinstaller coupled to the first FPU and operable to install the secondFPU code in the first field-programmable unit.
 63. The computer systemof claim 62, further comprising a plurality of FPUs including acorresponding plurality of FPU codes, and wherein the compatibilityverifier is operable to determine whether the first FPU code iscompatible with the plurality of FPU codes.
 64. The computer system ofclaim 63, further comprising a plurality of field-replaceable units, andwherein the compatibility verifier is operable to determine whether thefirst FPU code is compatible with the plurality of field-replaceableunits.
 65. The computer system of claim 63, further comprising arevision compatibility descriptor identifying a plurality of compatiblecombinations of FPU codes, and wherein the compatibility verifier isoperable to determine that the first FPU code is compatible with theplurality of FPU codes if a combination of the first FPU code and theplurality of FPU codes is among the plurality of compatible combinationsof FPU identified by the revision compatibility descriptor.
 66. Thecomputer system of claim 63, further comprising a plurality offield-replaceable units and a revision compatibility descriptoridentifying a plurality of compatible combinations of field-programmableunit codes and field-replaceable units, and wherein the compatibilityverifier is operable to determine that the first FPU code is compatiblewith the computer system if a combination of the first FPU code, theplurality of FPU codes, and the plurality of field-replaceable units isamong the plurality of combination combinations of FPU codes andfield-replaceable units identified by the revision compatibilitydescriptor.